On 26/10/2018 17:49, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > On 10/26/18 12:29 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote: >> On 26/10/2018 15:27, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote: >>> I must point out this very recent mailing list thread: >>> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html >>> >>> In this thread, you: >>> >>> 1) whine about someone taking over *your* packages, because you're the one >>> that >>> knows them and has cared for them and, after all, they're YOURS. >> I did no such thing. I opened the thread by thanking Felix for picking >> them up and asked a few questions about the plans for the packages and >> how to pass on what I know, because I was having trouble doing that over >> the bug tracker. What ensued after (the responses) was not my doing. I >> tried to respond to every and all comments respectfully and I think you >> will find a through discussion was had and a lot of details were sorted. > s/respectfully/passive-aggressively/ > > By "details sorted" do you mean, we told you to stfu and stop snidely > implying oppression? > >> Part of that was revealing that the ROOT stack was being picked up - >> yes, I care about it as it directly affects my profession and I've given >> thorough reasons why. I **never claimed the packages were mine** - if >> you talk about the usage of the word 'my', it clearly refers to me being >> the maintainer. I said I've put work into them, continue to do so and >> wanted to make sure I can pass that on in full. My TU application is me >> trying to do that. > Thereby implying you're unsure whether we're fit to maintain it, and you > wish to pass your personal judgment, as though we needed your approval > in order to function as a distribution. > > I assure you you're not the only person who has ever put work into an > AUR package and then seen it be moved to community. Most of those people > are cheerfully happy to see it moved, and their instinctive reaction is > *not* "gosh, I wonder if they really know enough to package this > according to my exacting standards". > >>> 2) whine about how things were handled on the bug tracker, thinking that >>> this >>> whining is how things get done. It's not. >> Again, I did no such thing. I explained what happened and asked how can >> I do better. I was told I have to stick to the bug tracker. Thus, I said >> why I think this approach is failing in that particular case and gave >> exampes. >> >> By the way, it was only because of that email that one of the bugs was >> reopened (by Eli) and fixed, otherwise it was ignored. Seems to me my >> email worked fine. > Thanks for lying about me. In case I had any doubt what to vote, I've > definitely made up my mind now and I'm voting against you. > > Just in case I was not somehow clear in the past: > > YOU FILED A REQUEST TO HAVE THE BUG RE-OPENED. THAT REQUEST WAS > EVALUATED ON ITS OWN MERIT. > > Spamming the mailing list with whiny complaints does not help. Scimmia > and I get notifications about all re-open requests, and we have a > special admin interface to view all such pending requests. These get > evaluated on merit. > > We will get to them when we get to them. There is no conspiracy to > ignore you until you complain on the mailing list like a whiny baby. > > I hereby swear to you, and will happily have it notarized if it makes > you any happier, that I completely ignored your thread when reading your > mailing list spam. > > I will acknowledge that due to noticing your mailing list spam, I took a > look at your re-open request. > A grand total of maybe two hours before I would have looked at it *ANYWAY*. > > I don't appreciate having to justify myself over inanities like this > conversation, and respectfully ask you to cease and desist on your > repeated lies about me. > >>> 3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker. >> I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. In the many emails I wrote that >> evening, I got confused about one bug being closed, where it wasn't. You >> tried to call me out for lying and my whole point being wrong, but later >> **you yourself sent a follow up email to correct your own statement**. I >> acknowledged my mistake on the spot. Surely, we can agree all of us make >> mistakes. **In no way or form was I telling bald faced lies.** >>> You really think this makes you TU material? Really? >> Yes, I think the way I have handled the situation makes me trustworthy. >> I care for the packages I maintain and the community enough to make sure >> the packages are left in excellent shape and hands so people can depend >> on them. I also have serious respect for the people here, community & >> TUs - as I've said before, ArchLinux has been good to me I want to good >> to it. This is why I made the fuss, because I care, but I also took >> everyone's perspective in and kept a working discussion. > I read this differently, you care so much that you don't trust anyone > else to do it right. You're a control freak, and I don't want to have to > deal with you on the team, no matter how capable you are as a programmer. > > Other TUs can make their own decisions of course. > You call me "passive aggressive" and a "whiny baby"... Everything I say must be with some hidden malicious intent, right?
You have to defend yourself and I don't?? I'm sorry Eli, but I have told no lies about you. I and everyone here has emails with dates and hours showing a sequence of events - I sent my initial email at 9pm, you re-opening the bug at 3am UK. Everyone can check that. This is the last email I sent to you about this - thread is public anyway.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
